On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 20:39:42 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:

Umm.. Officer, I can read a number plate at 20m in good light...
However, I am marginal at night with more lens exposed.

I find the frames interfere with peripheral vision. I guess someone used
to driving wearing glasses, turns their head more.

You turn your head even more when wearing glasses and you have only one
eye!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 09:06:22 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yeah, I have extreme peripheral vision.

You have even more **** for brains, senile Rodent!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

NY wrote:
"


quickly built up. There were long period where the traffic was stationary,
and then occasions when everyone shuffled forward about 100 yards. The guy
in front of me kept his foot on his footbrake all the time he was
stationary, so all I could see was three big red blobs from his brake
lights. I put my sun visor down and closed my eyes. The light was so bright
even through my eyelids that I could see when they went out and knew that it
was safe to move forwards a bit. Even so, it was difficult to see the road
ahead for the first few seconds because my night vision had been "destroyed"
by the bright light and took a while to recover. I'm not sure whether he had
an automatic and was too lazy to put it into neutral and apply the handbrake
whenever he was stopped - after all, it was easy to work out that each time
we stopped it would be for at least a minute. I suffered in silence because
I didn't want to cause conflict, but eventually the guy behind me (who could
see the brake lights through my windscreen) leapt out and yelled "For F's
sake take your foot off the brake when you've stopped", and I heard a few
cheers from other drivers behind me ;-) The offender decided to play silly
buggers so he then took to doing an emergency stop whenever he got close to
the car in front - luckily I wasn't too close when he first did it, and I
was wise to his little game after that. I resisted the temptation (and it
was hard to resist!) to put my headlights on full beam so *he* would be
dazzled like he was doing to me.


I dont do the milage I used to since I retired but my solution to that
was to install a spare rear view mirror on the top of the dash facing
forward, most of the time it was angled well down but get somebody keeping
their brake lights on too long it was easy to adjust so it reflected the
red glare back into their car .

GH

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 23:43:24 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

People who do not wear reflective items when crossing roads in odd

places,

Yep, most pedestrians do wear dark clothing. Impossible to see at
night with no street lights. Don't carry a torch or have any retro
reflective clothing trim or arm bands or something.

Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now accepted
to be the light used by cyclists, dipped the headlights which reduced the
ability to see far ahead and slowed down.
As the light got closer slowed further and kept well over to give room for
the approaching cyclist but
said to the missus €œ is that sod wanting the whole road he looks like he
is cycling on the wrong side€�
at that moment the pool from the dipped beam reached the position of the
flashing lamp. to reveal
a pedestrian completely dressed in dark clothing holding a flashing torch
who was correctly following the old advice to face oncoming traffic on the
same side.
If he had held a steady torch I would have realised and not mistaken him
for a cyclist approaching on the other side, fortunately we were going slow
enough by then to easily move out and give him space but I have seem others
race along the same lane when I was walking along it wearing a reflective
tabard and a bright but steady torch who dont slow much to pass you.

GH

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
You can get glasses for astigmatism.

Yes. I try to avoid wearing glasses for activities other than TV or
reading etc.

Why?

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 10 February 2020 02:09:18 UTC, Marland wrote:


Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now accepted
to be the light used by cyclists

Correction, "some cyclists". I am not convinced that flashing lights are a overall benefit. And, even if they are, there should also be a persistent light so that you can locate them between flashes.

But I do tend to use the (of course, non-flashing) front light on my bicycle almost any time I am riding on the road.

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 1:42:13 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 2,
John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote:
Night driving is made harder by: People with dirty and poorly aimed
headlights. Houses with exterior floodlights aimed to light up the air.
Buildings with bulkhead type lights that just throw the light
everwhere. Cyclists who deliberately seem to aim their intensive lights
at the eyes of drivers.

And simply getting old.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

+1

and bloody cyclops and those with one headlight high and one low

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
You can get glasses for astigmatism.

Yes. I try to avoid wearing glasses for activities other than TV or
reading etc.

Why?

I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on
sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.


--
Tim Lamb

On Monday, 10 February 2020 12:52:23 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:


I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on
sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.


Interesting view.

People who have one leg shorter than the other can end up with horrible musculoskeletal issues because of the twisting induced. A simple heel lift/raised shoe, obviously an aid, can prevent that.

I'd suggest that it is important to consider each and every one of the aid options individually and not have blanket attitude.

As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But distance is another matter. I probably can pass the standard eyesight test but why on earth would I question whether I need glasses day by day, even minute by minute, depending on cloud cover? (Just went horribly dark here.) Of course I wouldn't. Wear them and be done.

But I purposely chose frameless with a cut-off at the bottom. Frameless avoids any possibility of a frame getting in the way (even if it is not a major issue for most people, most of the time). And the cut off means I can see the dashboard underneath the lens which is easier on my eyes than trying to focus through my glasses on something close.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 05:13:28 -0800 (PST), polygonum_on_google
wrote:

snip

As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But distance is another matter.

I'm the opposite but wear cheapo reading glasses all the time and can
still / better read things at a distance than without them?

I probably can pass the standard eyesight test but why on earth would I question whether I need glasses day by day, even minute by minute, depending on cloud cover? (Just went horribly dark here.) Of course I wouldn't. Wear them and be done.

Quite.

For my last eye test I was given three prescriptions, one for closeup
/ fine work, one for everyday and one for distance and had 3 pairs of
glasses made-up to suit (online, not that expensive).


But I purposely chose frameless with a cut-off at the bottom. Frameless avoids any possibility of a frame getting in the way (even if it is not a major issue for most people, most of the time). And the cut off means I can see the dashboard underneath the lens which is easier on my eyes than trying to focus through my glasses on something close.

I've never actually worn the prescription ones because they are
heavier than these frameless eBay jobbies (they are all moulded as one
from clear plastic) and I CBA to faff about changing glasses.

I have a few pairs of X4 mag (I think) that I use when doing close-up
work but I'm rarely doing that unpredictably.

I have never had proper prescription glasses because the chances are
they would last as long as most of my sunglasses, less than a day
before I loose / sit on them / drop them. ;-(

Because I rarely take these readers off, they seem to last a long time
.... or could it be because I have another 5 pairs 'spare'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In message ,
polygonum_on_google writes
On Monday, 10 February 2020 12:52:23 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:


I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on
sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.


Interesting view.

People who have one leg shorter than the other can end up with horrible
musculoskeletal issues because of the twisting induced. A simple heel
lift/raised shoe, obviously an aid, can prevent that.

Accepted.


I'd suggest that it is important to consider each and every one of the
aid options individually and not have blanket attitude.

The use of keyboard and mail has destroyed my handwriting as an example
of skills lost or diminished.

As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the
dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But
distance is another matter. I probably can pass the standard eyesight
test but why on earth would I question whether I need glasses day by
day, even minute by minute, depending on cloud cover? (Just went
horribly dark here.) Of course I wouldn't. Wear them and be done.

OK. Now try working outdoors when it is raining. Farmers flat caps have
a purpose beyond hiding their bald bits.

I like being able to tell the difference between a Rabbit and a Pigeon
at 300m.

But I purposely chose frameless with a cut-off at the bottom. Frameless
avoids any possibility of a frame getting in the way (even if it is not
a major issue for most people, most of the time). And the cut off means
I can see the dashboard underneath the lens which is easier on my eyes
than trying to focus through my glasses on something close.

I use a corrective lens for TV or deskwork. The next time an optician
advises a change I will consider frameless.

--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2020 02:09:18 UTC, Marland wrote:


Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy
night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now
accepted to be the light used by cyclists

Correction, "some cyclists". I am not convinced that flashing lights are
a overall benefit. And, even if they are, there should also be a
persistent light so that you can locate them between flashes.

The main benefit with LEDs is it increases battery life.

At one time, they would have been illegal. Has the law changed or simply
one of these things that are now tolerated, like kids driving powered
vehicles in a public place?

--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
You can get glasses for astigmatism.

Yes. I try to avoid wearing glasses for activities other than TV or
reading etc.

Why?

I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

I'd describe specs as a correction, not aid.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on
sales:-)

Sight correction has been around for a very long time. If it had adverse
effects, I'm sure we'd have heard about it by now.

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.

Basic sight correction is for distance. As we age, we loose the ability to
focus, hence needing reading specs. No matter how good your vision was
when young.

And if you need correction for distance, driving without using it is
rather anti-social.

BTW, I'm pretty old. But with correction for distance have no problems
reading everything on the dash. But do need additional magnification to
read or use a computer.


--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 05:13:28 -0800, polygonum_on_google wrote:

As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the dashboard,
even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But distance is
another matter. I probably can pass the standard eyesight test but why
on earth would I question whether I need glasses day by day, even minute
by minute, depending on cloud cover? (Just went horribly dark here.) Of
course I wouldn't. Wear them and be done.

But I purposely chose frameless with a cut-off at the bottom. Frameless
avoids any possibility of a frame getting in the way (even if it is not
a major issue for most people, most of the time). And the cut off means
I can see the dashboard underneath the lens which is easier on my eyes
than trying to focus through my glasses on something close.

I used to have one short sighted eye that was just right for the
dashboard, and one that couldn't read the dashboard but could see
everything outside the car clearly.

With the loss of the short sighted one, I couldn't see much of the
instrumentation (speedo was OK). So now I have bifocals with the cutoff
set to the top of the dashboard under normal driving conditions. The
prescription for distance is very weak and corrects a recent, slight, age-
related change.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
T i m wrote:
As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the
dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But
distance is another matter.

I'm the opposite but wear cheapo reading glasses all the time and can
still / better read things at a distance than without them?

Ready made reading specs have plus lenses. Various strengths. If you are
hyperopic (your eyes focus beyond infinity) all you're doing is correcting
that. Ready made may be OK for that provided both eyes are the same and
you have no astigmatism. But given how cheap prescription ones are - and
how important a regular eye check is for picking up problems (and not just
with the eyes) makes little sense not to get them.

--
*We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy
night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now
accepted to be the light used by cyclists, dipped the headlights which
reduced the ability to see far ahead and slowed down.
As the light got closer slowed further and kept well over to give room
for the approaching cyclist but
said to the missus €œ is that sod wanting the whole road he looks
like he is cycling on the wrong side€�
at that moment the pool from the dipped beam reached the position of
the flashing lamp. to reveal
a pedestrian completely dressed in dark clothing holding a flashing
torch who was correctly following the old advice to face oncoming
traffic on the same side.
If he had held a steady torch I would have realised and not mistaken
him for a cyclist approaching on the other side, fortunately we were
going slow enough by then to easily move out and give him space but I
have seem others race along the same lane when I was walking along it
wearing a reflective tabard and a bright but steady torch who dont
slow much to pass you.

GH



Scarey!

On 10/02/2020 12:46, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Â* Tim Lamb wrote:
You can get glasses for astigmatism.

Yes. I try to avoid wearing glasses for activities other than TV or
reading etc.

Why?

I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

I can see a possibility for that, in that the eyes may not have to work
so hard at the extremes and the muscles could lose condition and the
ability to do so.

Even if that is not the case, using glasses all the time conditions you
to expecting them and leaves you feeling that you are struggling
without, whereas if you spend long periods without, you are used to it
and don't struggle.

On a different point, a child with a "lazy" eye can use glasses to
correct their vision for a few years. Using them for that period
actually improves the ability of the eye with and without glasses and as
they reach about 8 years, that improvement becomes permanent and they
can choose whether or not to continue wearing them. If they do not wear
the glasses in the first place or not for long enough, the brain learns
to disregard the weak eye and it remains permanently weak.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on
sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.

In my case astigmatism means that I am partially shortsighted and
partially longsighted and the combination means that I can do without
glasses for most things - although I prefer to wear them when driving,
but am legal to drive without if I unexpectedly had to for some reason.

SteveW

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

I can see a possibility for that, in that the eyes may not have to work
so hard at the extremes and the muscles could lose condition and the
ability to do so.

The muscles in a perfect eye are totally relaxed for distance vision. They
operate to increase the power of the lens for close work. (That why an
optician uses muscle relaxant drugs on a kid when doing a sight test.)

If you are hyperopic you have to use those muscles to focus on the
distance. Hence not correcting that can lead to strain.

A combination of those muscles failing and the lens hardening means
someone with otherwise perfect sight looses the ability to see close up
with age.

An optician pal of mine joked that about 35 years was the true lifespan of
man. Where they can still see in the distance for hunting, and repair
their arrows etc at night. And in the case of women, bear children. ;-)

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2020 02:09:18 UTC, Marland wrote:


Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy
night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now
accepted to be the light used by cyclists

Correction, "some cyclists". I am not convinced that flashing lights are
a overall benefit. And, even if they are, there should also be a
persistent light so that you can locate them between flashes.

The main benefit with LEDs is it increases battery life.

At one time, they would have been illegal. Has the law changed or simply
one of these things that are now tolerated,

LEDs generally or flashing ones?

Flashing ones have been legal for 15 years now if they are of some minimal
power figure and a suitable flash frequency.

GH

On 10/02/2020 13:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message ,
polygonum_on_google writes
On Monday, 10 February 2020 12:52:23 UTC, Tim LambÂ* wrote:


I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort
leads to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on
sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.


Interesting view.

People who have one leg shorter than the other can end up with
horrible musculoskeletal issues because of the twisting induced. A
simple heel lift/raised shoe, obviously an aid, can prevent that.

Accepted.


I'd suggest that it is important to consider each and every one of the
aid options individually and not have blanket attitude.

The use of keyboard and mail has destroyed my handwriting as an example
of skills lost or diminished.

Socrates complained that writing lead to people not needing to remember
things.

--
Max Demian

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
You can get glasses for astigmatism.

Yes. I try to avoid wearing glasses for activities other than TV or
reading etc.

Why?

I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any sort leads
to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward convincing
arguments for the alternative and their livelihood depends on sales:-)

When I was first prescribed glasses for my short sightedness
as an early teenager, the ophthalmologist did tell me that I
shouldn't use them for reading. None of the other later
ophthalmologist could see any point in that recommendation
although I did find it more convenient to read without my
glasses. I always used ophthalmologist in those days because
that was what my parents thought was best, so they never
had any financial incentive for what they recommended.

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close up is
not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and carry reading
glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a challenge as digital
dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is clear and automation takes
care of the rest.


--
Tim Lamb

On Monday, 10 February 2020 13:44:54 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:


OK. Now try working outdoors when it is raining. Farmers flat caps have
a purpose beyond hiding their bald bits.

Will cycling do as an outdoor activity that I do with glasses - sometimes in heavy rain? :-)

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 05:40:47 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


When I was first prescribed glasses for my short sightedness
as an early teenager

Nobody gives a ****, senile asshole!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:16:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the
dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses. But
distance is another matter.

I'm the opposite but wear cheapo reading glasses all the time and can
still / better read things at a distance than without them?

Ready made reading specs have plus lenses. Various strengths.

I think these are 2.5's?

If you are
hyperopic (your eyes focus beyond infinity) all you're doing is correcting
that.

I've not been told I have that that I am aware of?

Ready made may be OK for that provided both eyes are the same and
you have no astigmatism.

Slight but not enough to make individual lenses worth it (seemingly).

eg, Even with prescription glasses on my left eye is always just
slightly weaker (focus) than my right. I think the issue is with the
macular in my left eye, not the lens as such.

But given how cheap prescription ones are - and
how important a regular eye check is for picking up problems (and not just
with the eyes) makes little sense not to get them.

I have got them Dave, 3 pairs (one for each role, close-up working,
std reading and long distance / driving) but find them less
comfortable than the cheapo readers and overall, less convenient than
just having the one pair that stay on my face all the time.

I did swap over to my soldering glasses earlier whilst soldering the
wires directly onto a vehicle tracker PCB because the surface mount
socket had been ripped off the board. Because it was soooo small, I
really needed my bigger magnifier lamp but managed without.

Sitting in front of this 17" screen and closing my left eye it hardly
makes any difference (still clear and sharp). Closing just my right
eye and the text is still sharp as such but distorted slightly (and
slightly darker). When I tried it last, the professionally made
reading glasses weren't much better [1] ... and didn't fit as well.[2]
;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] They might be slightly less scratched than these are now. ;-)

[2] These Readyspecs stay on my head no matter what I'm doing (upside
down etc) and being frameless (and with translucent arms) don't
interfere with my peripheral vision at all.

In article , Dave W
writes
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 13:51:26 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"John" Not.responding.@dotcom wrote in message
.92.222...
Night driving is made harder by:
People with dirty and poorly aimed headlights.
Houses with exterior floodlights aimed to light up the air.
Buildings with bulkhead type lights that just throw the light everwhere.
Cyclists who deliberately seem to aim their intensive lights at the eyes
of drivers.

Drivers who don't dip their headlights when you can see them coming towards
you. (That goes without saying, which I presume is why you didn't mention
it.)

Drivers who leave their rear (red) foglights on even when it isn't foggy.

Drivers who keep their brake lights on when they are stopped for many
minutes in a queue of traffic, dazzling and "destroying" the night vision of
the drivers behind. (*)

I've sometimes wondered if it was possible to construct a pull-down
half-silvered mirror to reflect the brake lights back to the offender.

Offenders often had one brake light burnt out from over-use.
When I look in the mirror of my Defender at night I can see the
reflection in the rear door of the brake lights of the car in front.
Haven't found a use for it yet though.
--
bert

In article , Jim GM4DHJ ...
writes
On 09/02/2020 12:52, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 11:19:29 UTC, Dave W wrote:


I was talking about oncoming cars. The main beam may be dipped, but I
get the blue spill just as they're passing.
Sometimes the blueness is strong enough to make me double-check it
is not an emergency vehicle.

who was it that kept telling me blue headlights were illegal ? ...
Flashing blue lights.
--
bert

On 10/02/2020 02:09, Marland wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 23:43:24 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

People who do not wear reflective items when crossing roads in odd

places,

Yep, most pedestrians do wear dark clothing. Impossible to see at
night with no street lights. Don't carry a torch or have any retro
reflective clothing trim or arm bands or something.

Had an a situation last month in narrow country lane on a filthy night ,

observed a flashing white approaching which while annoying is now accepted
to be the light used by cyclists, dipped the headlights which reduced the
ability to see far ahead and slowed down.
As the light got closer slowed further and kept well over to give room for
the approaching cyclist but
said to the missus €œ is that sod wanting the whole road he looks like he
is cycling on the wrong side€�
at that moment the pool from the dipped beam reached the position of the
flashing lamp. to reveal
a pedestrian completely dressed in dark clothing holding a flashing torch
who was correctly following the old advice to face oncoming traffic on the
same side.
If he had held a steady torch I would have realised and not mistaken him
for a cyclist approaching on the other side, fortunately we were going slow
enough by then to easily move out and give him space but I have seem others
race along the same lane when I was walking along it wearing a reflective
tabard and a bright but steady torch who dont slow much to pass you.


Why use a flashing torch if walking? You surely want to see where you
are going, so a steady light is best. When walking if I see or hear
something comming ahead I point the torch in that direction but dip it
as I ould in a car once the oncoming vehicle appears to have
acknowledged my presence.




GH



--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

On 10/02/2020 13:13:28, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2020 12:52:23 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:


I have this personal belief that using aids of pretty much any
sort leads to a reduction in capability.

No optician has confirmed this belief but none have put forward
convincing arguments for the alternative and their livelihood
depends on sales:-)

I spend most of my time outdoors where the ability to focus close
up is not required. I don't suffer from headaches/eyestrain and
carry reading glasses on a neck string. Driving is more of a
challenge as digital dashboard displays are blurred but speedo is
clear and automation takes care of the rest.


Interesting view.

People who have one leg shorter than the other can end up with
horrible musculoskeletal issues because of the twisting induced. A
simple heel lift/raised shoe, obviously an aid, can prevent that.

I'd suggest that it is important to consider each and every one of
the aid options individually and not have blanket attitude.

As for glasses and driving, I am shortsighted and can see the
dashboard, even the smallest details, well enough, without glasses.
But distance is another matter. I probably can pass the standard
eyesight test but why on earth would I question whether I need
glasses day by day, even minute by minute, depending on cloud cover?
(Just went horribly dark here.) Of course I wouldn't. Wear them and
be done.

But I purposely chose frameless with a cut-off at the bottom.
Frameless avoids any possibility of a frame getting in the way (even
if it is not a major issue for most people, most of the time). And
the cut off means I can see the dashboard underneath the lens which
is easier on my eyes than trying to focus through my glasses on
something close.

I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a blank
wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a monitor I
have a distant view.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye muscles
become very lazy.

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a blank
wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a monitor I
have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye muscles
become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/02/2020 11:08:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a blank
wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a monitor I
have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err, there is no such thing as 'perfect vision'. I'm sure many can read
adequately without reading specs at all stages of life. The only issue
is they might not be able to focus at distance without assistance.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye muscles
become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Well, that discounts just about everyone in their later stages of life:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomm...4_modified.svg

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 11/02/2020 11:08:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
I'm with Tim here. A lot of deterioration of sight is through lack of
use of the accommodation muscles. While the lens does harden my sight
deteriorate most when sedentary and focussed onto a screen with a blank
wall behind. Since then I choose to sit where if I look over a monitor I
have a distant view.

Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err, there is no such thing as 'perfect vision'.

You are wrong, as always.

I'm sure many can read adequately without reading specs at all stages of
life.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

The only issue is they might not be able to focus at distance without
assistance.

The other obvious issue is with those who can
no longer read without some form of correction.

The worst killer for accommodation is varifocal lenses. The eye muscles
become very lazy.

Why would you get varifocals if you still could accommodate OK?

Well, that discounts just about everyone in their later stages of life:

More bull****.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomm...4_modified.svg

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:37:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Err, there is no such thing as 'perfect vision'.

You are wrong, as always.

You are auto-contradicting as always, you sick senile asshole!

FLUSH the rest of your idiotic auto-contradicting bull****

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Err, someone with perfect vision will only choose to have reading specs
when it becomes impossible to focus close enough without.

Err, there is no such thing as 'perfect vision'.

Perfect as in flawless. There is an accepted standard for this.


I'm sure many can read
adequately without reading specs at all stages of life.
'
Only if they start out with at least one eye 'short sighted'.


The only issue
is they might not be able to focus at distance without assistance.

In which case their vision is flawed.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
I'm sure many can read
adequately without reading specs at all stages of life.
'
Only if they start out with at least one eye 'short sighted'.

I presume short-sighted younger people (who still have working "focussing
muscles" and lenses which obey those muscles) will have glasses which they
wear all the time to correct a *systematic* error - eyeball too large (or is
it too small) for the lens to focus at infinity. They *may* also be able to
read without those glasses because their lens can focus at that distance
without correction.

As people get older, their focussing muscles become weaker and/or their lens
becomes stiffer and less able to change from its relaxed (infinity) setting
to focus at a closer distance which requires the lens to be compressed
diammetrically so it becomes thicker from front to back and so has a shorter
focal length.

As you say, if one lens is short-sighted from an early age, it will be able
to provide one-eyed close vision even when the other non-short-sighted eye
can no longer change focus to see close up.

I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts in
both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require the
person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one to infinity and the other
to much closer (so as to cover both close and distance in different eyes).
Does the brain get used to discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and
only use whichever eye is providing an in-focus image?

I don't know because my eyes have always had very similar focal lengths -
for many years I was very slightly short-sighted and got a very small
benefit from wearing weak distance glasses for driving. Now I'm in my
fifties both eyes are losing their ability to focus to close distances so I
need reading glasses; interestingly my distance glasses now actually make
even distance less sharp than with my unaided eyes, and they definitely make
my closer vision (eg of the dashboard) worse - so I've stopped wearing the
distance glasses for driving. It's scary how my reading glasses used to be
needed only when reading and made the computer screen more blurred than
unaided, whereas now my eyes have changed further and my reading glasses are
needed even for computer screen - and indeed with my reading glasses I can't
focus as close as I could, so I probably need a new stronger prescription.

In article ,
NY wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
I'm sure many can read
adequately without reading specs at all stages of life.
'
Only if they start out with at least one eye 'short sighted'.

I presume short-sighted younger people (who still have working
"focussing muscles" and lenses which obey those muscles) will have
glasses which they wear all the time to correct a *systematic* error -
eyeball too large (or is it too small) for the lens to focus at
infinity. They *may* also be able to read without those glasses because
their lens can focus at that distance without correction.

Quite. Some advantage being born short sighted if you can't have perfect
eyes from birth. As at least you will still be able to read in later life
without correction. I'm so called long sighted, so need correction for
distance at all times - and additional correction for reading.

As people get older, their focussing muscles become weaker and/or their
lens becomes stiffer and less able to change from its relaxed
(infinity) setting to focus at a closer distance which requires the
lens to be compressed diammetrically so it becomes thicker from front
to back and so has a shorter focal length.

As you say, if one lens is short-sighted from an early age, it will be
able to provide one-eyed close vision even when the other
non-short-sighted eye can no longer change focus to see close up.

I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts in
both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require the
person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one to infinity and the
other to much closer (so as to cover both close and distance in
different eyes). Does the brain get used to discarding whichever eye's
image is blurred and only use whichever eye is providing an in-focus
image?

I simply dunno. I wear contact lenses and did try one made to my reading
presciption. But didn't like it, being used to having both eyes for
everything before.

I don't know because my eyes have always had very similar focal lengths
- for many years I was very slightly short-sighted and got a very small
benefit from wearing weak distance glasses for driving. Now I'm in my
fifties both eyes are losing their ability to focus to close distances
so I need reading glasses; interestingly my distance glasses now
actually make even distance less sharp than with my unaided eyes, and
they definitely make my closer vision (eg of the dashboard) worse - so
I've stopped wearing the distance glasses for driving. It's scary how
my reading glasses used to be needed only when reading and made the
computer screen more blurred than unaided, whereas now my eyes have
changed further and my reading glasses are needed even for computer
screen - and indeed with my reading glasses I can't focus as close as I
could, so I probably need a new stronger prescription.

Because I have my distance vision corrected by contact lenses I obviously
need reading specs at my advanced age. And less powerful ones for the
computer. And even more powerful ones for soldering etc - or looking for
PCB faults.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 12:46:25 UTC, NY wrote:


I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts in
both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require the
person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one to infinity and the other
to much closer (so as to cover both close and distance in different eyes).
Does the brain get used to discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and
only use whichever eye is providing an in-focus image?

My mother had cataracts in both eyes operated on - but done at least a few months apart. I am pretty sure they were set the same. She had ridiculously good distance vision for someone of 90 - despite some macular degeneration.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
I'm sure many can read
adequately without reading specs at all stages of life.
'
Only if they start out with at least one eye 'short sighted'.

I presume short-sighted younger people (who still have working "focussing
muscles" and lenses which obey those muscles) will have glasses which they
wear all the time to correct a *systematic* error - eyeball too large (or
is it too small) for the lens to focus at infinity.

I didn’t wear them when reading books etc and I am short sighted.

They *may* also be able to read without those glasses because their lens
can focus at that distance without correction.

I certainly could and still can, tho now the book is quite close to my nose.

As people get older, their focussing muscles become weaker and/or their
lens becomes stiffer and less able to change from its relaxed (infinity)
setting to focus at a closer distance which requires the lens to be
compressed diammetrically so it becomes thicker from front to back and so
has a shorter focal length.

As you say, if one lens is short-sighted from an early age, it will be
able to provide one-eyed close vision even when the other
non-short-sighted eye can no longer change focus to see close up.

I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts in
both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require the
person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one to infinity and the
other to much closer (so as to cover both close and distance in different
eyes).

Those I know who have had cataract surgery do use glasses for reading.

Does the brain get used to discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and
only use whichever eye is providing an in-focus image?

I don't know because my eyes have always had very similar focal lengths -
for many years I was very slightly short-sighted and got a very small
benefit from wearing weak distance glasses for driving. Now I'm in my
fifties both eyes are losing their ability to focus to close distances so
I need reading glasses; interestingly my distance glasses now actually
make even distance less sharp than with my unaided eyes, and they
definitely make my closer vision (eg of the dashboard) worse - so I've
stopped wearing the distance glasses for driving. It's scary how my
reading glasses used to be needed only when reading and made the computer
screen more blurred than unaided, whereas now my eyes have changed further
and my reading glasses are needed even for computer screen - and indeed
with my reading glasses I can't focus as close as I could, so I probably
need a new stronger prescription.

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 06:57:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I didn¢t wear them when reading books etc and I am short sighted.

....and ****headed, don't forget ****headed, senile ****head!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 12/02/2020 19:49, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 12:46:25 UTC, NY wrote:


I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace cataracts in
both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity (and require the
person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one to infinity and the other
to much closer (so as to cover both close and distance in different eyes).
Does the brain get used to discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and
only use whichever eye is providing an in-focus image?

My mother had cataracts in both eyes operated on - but done at least a few months apart. I am pretty sure they were set the same. She had ridiculously good distance vision for someone of 90 - despite some macular degeneration.

Yes. My mother had cataracts removed from both eyes a couple of years
ago. Both give excellent distance vision - indeed when going back for a
check-up they described her as having "fighter pilot eyes."

SteveW

On 12/02/2020 19:49, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 12:46:25 UTC, NY wrote:


I've always wondered what eye surgeons do when they replace
cataracts in both lenses? Do they set both eyes to a fixed infinity
(and require the person to wear glasses to read) or do they set one
to infinity and the other to much closer (so as to cover both close
and distance in different eyes). Does the brain get used to
discarding whichever eye's image is blurred and only use whichever
eye is providing an in-focus image?

My mother had cataracts in both eyes operated on - but done at least
a few months apart. I am pretty sure they were set the same. She had
ridiculously good distance vision for someone of 90 - despite some
macular degeneration.

A friend had his set for working at a computer screen. Since that mostly
is what he does. He wears glasses for driving.


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.